I wonder if social partisanship decreases at the city/neighbourhood level compared to when discussing national issues.
For the experiment with social partisanship, I wonder if the results would have been altered if instead of being told about a view from the opposing side by the person running the experiment, the opposing view was introduced during an actual (online for my thought experiment) discussion with people from the opposing side. If so, would the size/composition of the group have any effect on the results? Would the presence of an audience for the discussion have an effect on the results? Would discussing a shared, non-political interest ahead of time influence the results?
Great article and I happily shared with my circle. Maybe the timing was bad (i.e., recent horrifying news germane to the gun debate), but there was not a lot of interest in grappling with the social identity issue you raised. I am curious though how you perceive your own writing's influence on the great divide. As you would readily admit, your readers are very much on the left. My perception is that your writing, with few exceptions, reinforces the ideological stances of the left with people who are already on the left (there are notable exceptions, for instance your article on immigration). Further, your stance often involves labeling the majority of those with conservative viewpoints as racist bigots. You may argue that it is social identification that matters, and that point I grant, but social identity is itself related to ideological partisanship (see Table 1). Also, who wants to identify socially with racist bigots?! Thus, I take the position that your writing contributes to the divide identified by Dr. Strickler. What do you think? Is this a priority for you?
I wonder if social partisanship decreases at the city/neighbourhood level compared to when discussing national issues.
For the experiment with social partisanship, I wonder if the results would have been altered if instead of being told about a view from the opposing side by the person running the experiment, the opposing view was introduced during an actual (online for my thought experiment) discussion with people from the opposing side. If so, would the size/composition of the group have any effect on the results? Would the presence of an audience for the discussion have an effect on the results? Would discussing a shared, non-political interest ahead of time influence the results?
Great article. Wish you had solutions. Here is a similar piece although the title is regrettable https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/30/bill-bishop-tribalism-worse-polarization-trump-00035785
Great article and I happily shared with my circle. Maybe the timing was bad (i.e., recent horrifying news germane to the gun debate), but there was not a lot of interest in grappling with the social identity issue you raised. I am curious though how you perceive your own writing's influence on the great divide. As you would readily admit, your readers are very much on the left. My perception is that your writing, with few exceptions, reinforces the ideological stances of the left with people who are already on the left (there are notable exceptions, for instance your article on immigration). Further, your stance often involves labeling the majority of those with conservative viewpoints as racist bigots. You may argue that it is social identification that matters, and that point I grant, but social identity is itself related to ideological partisanship (see Table 1). Also, who wants to identify socially with racist bigots?! Thus, I take the position that your writing contributes to the divide identified by Dr. Strickler. What do you think? Is this a priority for you?